Progressive and “conservative” corporatists think that NIMBYism, Not In My Backyard initiatives, is an economic and political problem when it involves the Little Guy fighting to conserve his community’s landscape and way of life—often by rejecting the enforced settlement of refugees and illegal immigrants, as well as by opting out of development.
The Economist detests NIMBYism because, from its perspective, it’s development uber ales (above all): The paper approves of Boris Johnson’s “promises to reform the planning system, which allows homeowners to veto development and thus condemns Britons to live in expensive rabbit-hutches.”
Oh, no, homesteaders can’t be allowed to “veto development.”
But even The Economist disapproves of Boris Johnson’s usurpation of local authorities:
“Mr Johnson’s solution to the problem of NIMBYism is to limit local authorities’ say on planning, giving central government more control over development. Whether or not he will really face down angry suburbanites in the Home Counties over new houses—he has already bottled out of a previous attempt—this approach derives from the fundamental problem with Johnsonism: his tendency to grab power. If local authorities do not want development, Mr Johnson’s answer is not to give them more say over taxation and thus an incentive to grow, but to force them to accept it. If parts of the country are poor, his answer is not to allow them to develop their own growth strategies, but to create a central fund to give them money.